Collagenase inhibition in the healing colon

28Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

A randomized controlled trial was performed to assess the effect of intravenous aprotinin (Trasylol) on the healing of experimental colonic anastomoses in the rabbit following a standard left colonic resection anastomosis. Assessment of tensile strength was by means of both bursting pressure and breaking strength. Those animals subjected to bursting pressure assessment received intravenous aprotinin 80,000 KIU (kallikrein inhibitory units) at the time of anaesthesia, and postoperatively 160,000 KIU per day given in divided doses for three days. Control animals received saline placebo. A further group of animals received a lower loading and maintenance aprotinin dose (40,000 KIU and 60,000 KIU per day respectively) with control animals receiving saline. Breaking strength was employed as the means of assessment. The mean bursting pressures were 47.7 ± 2.9 mmHg and 37.5 ± 3.4 mmHg for aprotinin and controls respectively (P<0.05). The mean difference in collagen content of the anastomosis compared to the resected specimen was +1.25 ± 0.50 μg/mg and -1.02 ± 0.47 μg/mg for aprotinin and placebo groups (P<0.005). The mean breaking strength in the aprotinin group was 169.6 ± 74.5 g and 110.0 ± 65.9 g for the saline group (P<0.02). The mean difference in collagen content of the anastomosis compared to the resected specimen was +0.95 ± 0.69 μg/mg and -1.5 ± 0.78 μg/mg for the aprotinin and saline groups respectively (P<0.05). The significant elevation of both bursting pressure and breaking strength assessments, with a significant improvement in the collagen content of the anastomoses, may be the result of collagenase inhibition following the use of intravenous aprotinin in the experimental model.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Young, H. L., & Wheeler, M. H. (1983). Collagenase inhibition in the healing colon. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 76(1), 32–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107688307600108

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free